[lkml]   [1999]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Kernel interface changes (was Re: cdrecord problems on
    David Weinehall <> writes:

    > How come, that if IBM doesn't make a penny from AFS, they don't release
    > the source, so that we can include it in the kernel?!!?!

    You misunderstand. IBM currently does not make a penny from _Linux AFS_.
    They make rather a lot from AFS in general, which is why I highly
    doubt they'll ever release the source to it.

    They don't make any money from Linux AFS because they didn't write the
    port; they don't sell it. If you have AFS licensed, as CMU, MIT, and
    most likely many other places do, you can use it. They won't support
    it, and it'll tend to lag behind the official AFS on other platforms,
    but it's better than not being able to get to your files.

    This will likely change, though. Transarc is apparently working on an
    officially-supported client. Maybe they'll have the time to track
    kernel interface changes. I hope they will; I hate not being able to
    upgrade to a new kernel because I'd lose my files.

    And yes, I understand that having source is better than not having
    source. I think everyone here does. But what a lot of people seem
    unable to grasp is that "no support" really isn't better than
    "binary-only support".

    Frankly, I'd rather be able to access my files _now_ with a binary
    module than have to wait for Arla to mature. I'd rather pay $20 to
    have my fancy new soundcard work than wait months for someone to write
    a free driver. I like OSS just fine, but I don't run Linux on my
    machines to get into a state of free software religious purity. I run
    it so I can get some work done.

    I'm sure someone out there is thinking "well, he should obviously work
    on porting the features he wants". If I could, I would. But, sadly, I
    have research work that comes first. If I had enough spare time, maybe
    I'd help with fixing more of the problems I see, but I don't. And even
    if I could, I couldn't help with everything -- for example, I'm pretty
    sure I legally cannot help write Arla due to NDAs my lab holds on the
    AFS source.

    Making life difficult for binary modules is great if what you really
    want is to have a pure, all-open-source hobbyist environment.
    Unfortunately, not everyone who uses Linux these days is a hobbyist or
    even wants to be. Some of us chose it because it's a better system
    that we can use for our work. If I can contribute something to the
    community through porting our NASD research code to Linux, that'd be
    great. But it's not my primary goal. If that makes me a bad citizen in
    the Linux world, so be it. As the MIT folks have said repeatedly,
    there are several other high-quality free Unixes out there.

    Is driving away users who aren't pure enough really what you want to


    nat lanza --------------------- research programmer, parallel data lab, cmu scs --------------------------------
    there are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths -- alfred north whitehead

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:50    [W:0.023 / U:13.792 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site